DOCSLIB.ORG

Upl, Mdp and Mjp (Defining What Lawyers Do and Where They Can Do It): Part Ii

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Upl, Mdp and Mjp (Defining What Lawyers Do and Where They Can Do It): Part Ii UPL, MDP and MJP (Defining What Lawyers Do and McGuireWoods LLP Where They Can Do It): Part II T. Spahn (1/1/19) Hypotheticals and Analyses UPL, MDP AND MJP (DEFINING WHAT LAWYERS DO AND WHERE THEY CAN DO IT): PART II Hypotheticals and Analyses* Thomas E. Spahn McGuireWoods LLP * These analyses primarily rely on the ABA Model Rules, which represent a voluntary organization's suggested guidelines. Every state has adopted its own unique set of mandatory ethics rules, and you should check those when seeking ethics guidance. For ease of use, these analyses and citations use the generic term "legal ethics opinion" rather than the formal categories of the ABA's and state authorities' opinions -- including advisory, formal and informal. ______________________ © 2019 McGuireWoods LLP. McGuireWoods LLP grants you the right to download and/or reproduce this work for personal, educational use within your organization only, provided that you give proper attribution and do not alter the work. You are not permitted to re-publish or re-distribute the work to third parties without permission. Please email Thomas E. Spahn ([email protected]) with any questions or requests. 35951124_10 UPL, MDP and MJP (Defining What Lawyers Do and McGuireWoods LLP Where They Can Do It): Part II T. Spahn (1/1/19) Hypotheticals and Analyses TABLE OF CONTENTS Hypo No. Subject Page Multijurisdictional Practice -- Governmental Authority and Consequences 1 Governmental Authority to Regulate Lawyers ......................................... 1 2 Jurisdiction Over Out-of-State Lawyers ................................................... 12 3 Status of Pleadings Signed by Out-of-State Lawyers ............................. 16 4 Out-of State Lawyers' Ability to Collect Fees ........................................... 23 Lawyers "Practicing" in Another State Where They Are Not Physically Present 5 Providing Advice about Another State's Law .......................................... 32 6 Establishing a "Virtual" Presence in Another State ................................ 41 Temporary Practice in Another State: Litigators 7 Pro Hac Admission in Another State's Court ........................................... 75 8 Involvement in Pre-Litigation Activities .................................................... 104 9 Involvement in Discovery .......................................................................... 121 10 Participation in Non-Court Proceedings ................................................... 126 11 Lawyers Representing Their Clients in Arbitrations Where the Lawyers Are Not Licensed ......................................................................... 131 i 35951124_10 UPL, MDP and MJP (Defining What Lawyers Do and McGuireWoods LLP Where They Can Do It): Part II T. Spahn (1/1/19) Hypotheticals and Analyses Hypo No. Subject Page Temporary Practice in Another State: Transactional Lawyers 12 Non-Litigation Work in Another State -- Definition of "Temporary" Presence ...................................................................................................... 142 13 Requirement of a Relationship with the Lawyer's Home State: Narrow View ................................................................................................ 148 14 Requirement of a Relationship with the Lawyer's Home State: State Variations ........................................................................................... 156 15 Requirement of a Relationship with the Lawyer's Home State: Broad View .................................................................................................. 172 16 Non-Litigation Work Without a Relationship with the Lawyer's Home State, but Based on Nationally-Uniform Law ................................ 176 Lawyers Moving Permanently to Another State 17 Lawyers Systematically and Continuously Practicing Law in a State Where They Are Not Licensed ......................................................... 182 18 Lawyers "Waiving in" to Another State's Bar .......................................... 197 19 Permissible Activities While Waiting to be Admitted by Motion in a New State .................................................................................................. 204 Effect of the Supremacy Clause on Lawyers Practicing Continuously in Another State Where They Are Not Licensed 20 Practicing Before Federal Agencies and Specialized Tribunals ............ 218 21 Practicing in Federal Courts ...................................................................... 225 22 Practicing "Federal" Law ........................................................................... 240 Serving as a Nonlawyer in Another State 23 Lawyers Acting as Paralegals in a State Where They Are Not Licensed ...................................................................................................... 258 ii 35951124_10 UPL, MDP and MJP (Defining What Lawyers Do and McGuireWoods LLP Where They Can Do It): Part II T. Spahn (1/1/19) Hypotheticals and Analyses Hypo No. Subject Page In-House Lawyers 24 In-House Lawyers Practicing in States Where They Are Not Licensed: General Rule ............................................................................. 262 25 In-House Lawyers Practicing in States Where They Are Not Licensed: Limitations ................................................................................ 273 Foreign Lawyers 26 Foreign Lawyers ......................................................................................... 283 iii 35951124_10 UPL, MDP and MJP (Defining What Lawyers Do and McGuireWoods LLP Where They Can Do It): Part II T. Spahn (1/1/19) Hypotheticals and Analyses Governmental Authority to Regulate Lawyers Hypothetical 1 You are interviewing for a law school professorship, and over lunch you and a current professor start discussing governmental power to regulate the legal profession. The professor claims that the federal government has the ultimate power to regulate the legal profession, because more than any other profession lawyers affect interstate commerce. You don't know whether to politely agree with the professor, or push back against what might be a deliberately incorrect view. Does the federal government have the ultimate power to regulate the legal profession? NO Analysis The constitution's Supremacy Clause1 allows federal law to essentially "trump" state law in certain matters. For instance, lawyers generally can rely on the Supremacy Clause to practice before certain federal agencies or specialized tribunals, even in states where the lawyers are not licensed to practice law.2 1 U.S. Const. art. VI, § 2. 2 Interestingly, courts have dealt with the effect of licences issued by other sovereigns – Native American Tribes. State of Arizona v. Lang, 323 P.3d 740, 742, 744, 745-46 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014) (concluding that a lawyer was committing the unauthorized practice of law in Arizona even though he had been admitted to practice in a tribal court; affirming an injunction prohibiting the nonmember from practicing law in Arizona; "We hold that a person who presents himself as an attorney based in an Arizona office engages in the unauthorized practice of law unless he has been admitted to practice before the Arizona Supreme Court, even if he has been admitted to practice in a tribal court within the boundaries of Arizona."; "Lang holds a law degree and is admitted to practice law in the San Carlos Apache Tribal Court. He has never been admitted to the practice of law by the Arizona Supreme Court, and he is not a certified legal document preparer under section 7-208 of the Arizona Code of Judicial Administration."; "The Arizona Constitution gives our supreme court exclusive authority to regulate the practice of law in Arizona. The supreme court has disciplinary jurisdiction over individuals who are not members of the Arizona Bar but are licensed to practice law in a different state or possession [sic] of the United States and have engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in Arizona. The Bar is authorized to investigate, prosecute, and obtain enforceable judgments in the superior court against such individuals."; "That residents of other states were affected by Lang's representations and that other states also may have jurisdiction over his conduct does not deprive Arizona of jurisdiction."; "Likewise, even if Lang could have represented S.J. (former client) in the federal employment law matter, he committed the unauthorized practice of law by falsely representing that he was an attorney practicing in Arizona. He 1 35951124_10 UPL, MDP and MJP (Defining What Lawyers Do and McGuireWoods LLP Where They Can Do It): Part II T. Spahn (1/1/19) Hypotheticals and Analyses However, most regulation of the legal profession occurs at the state level. Lawyers receive their licenses from states, and can be professionally disciplined by whatever state has given them a license. This state-centric regulatory regime creates a number of complicating issues, including the issue of "multijurisdictional" practice. That term involves lawyers practicing law in states where they are not licensed to practice law. This is not to say that the federal constitution does not affect states' power over the legal profession.3 For instance, several states have dealt with constitutional challenges to their requirement that lawyers licensed in those states maintain a permanent office in the state. In 2010, a New Jersey legal ethics opinion addressed New Jersey's requirement that New Jersey lawyers can advertise in that state only
Load more

Recommended publications
  • C:\Documents and Settings\Phohman\Local Settings\Temp\Notese1ef34\New Appendix.Wpd
    Appendix A MJP Commission I Recommendations Recommendation 1: The Commission endorses the ABA recommendation to continue to affirm its support for the principle of state judicial licensing and regulation of lawyers. Recommendation 2: The Commission does not endorse the amendment of Rule 5.5(b) of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct (Unauthorized Practice of Law) proposed by the ABA. Recommendation 3: The Commission modifies the ABA recommendation to adopt proposed Model Rule 5.5(c) - (e) to identify “safe harbors” allowing a lawyer to practice in another state. The Commission would make the list of “safe harbors” exclusive and would add a provision preventing lawyers who are no longer eligible to practice in the host state from practicing under a “safe harbor.” 1. The Commission endorses the ABA recommendation to adopt proposed Model Rule 5.5(c)(1) to allow work as co-counsel with a lawyer admitted to practice in the jurisdiction if it is made clear that the local lawyer share actual responsibility for the representation. 2. The Commission endorses the ABA recommendation to adopt proposed Model Rule 5.5(c)(2) to allow lawyers to perform professional services that any non- lawyer is legally permitted to render as long as it is made clear that the lawyer is performing the services as a lawyer and remains subject to the Rules of Professional Conduct. 3. The Commission endorses the ABA recommendation to adopt proposed Model Rule 5.5(c)(3) to allow lawyers to perform work ancillary to pending or prospective litigation if the lawyer is authorized by law to appear in the proceeding or reasonably expects to be so authorized.
    [Show full text]
  • Memorandum in Support of Motion for Attorney Fees
    Case 3:18-cv-00850-JAG Document 349 Filed 05/03/21 Page 1 of 28 PageID# 11159 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA RICHMOND DIVISION IN RE: INTERIOR MOLDED DOORS Lead Case 3:18-cv-00850-JAG INDIRECT PURCHASER ANTITRUST LITIGATION MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF INDIRECT PURCHASER PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES, REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES, AND SERVICE AWARDS TO THE CLASS REPRESENTATIVES Case 3:18-cv-00850-JAG Document 349 Filed 05/03/21 Page 2 of 28 PageID# 11160 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ........................................................................................................... i I. ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................... 3 A. Settlement Class Counsel’s Fee Request is Fair and Reasonable. ................................... 3 1. The Factors for Assessing Percentage-of-Fund Requests Support Settlement Class Counsel’s Fee Request. .............................................................................................. 5 a. IPP Class Counsel Obtained an Excellent Result for the Class. .......................... 6 b. The Lack of Objections by Settlement Class Members Supports Settlement Class Counsel’s Fee Request. .............................................................................. 7 c. IPP Class Counsel’s Skill and Efficiency Support Settlement Class Counsel’s Fee Request. ........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 2016-Annual-Report.Pdf
    2016ANNUAL REPORT PORTFOLIO OVE RVIEW NEW MEDIA REACH OF OUR DAILY OPERATE IN O VER 535 MARKETS N EWSPAPERS HAVE ACR OSS 36 STATES BEEN PUBLISHED FOR 100% MORE THAN 50 YEARS 630+ TOTAL COMMUNITY PUBLICATIONS REACH OVER 20 MILLION PEOPLE ON A WEEKLY BASIS 130 D AILY N EWSPAPERS 535+ 1,400+ RELATED IN-MARKET SERVE OVER WEBSITES SALES 220K REPRESENTATIVES SMALL & MEDIUM BUSINESSES SAAS, DIGITAL MARKETING SERVICES, & IT SERVICES CUMULATIVE COMMON DIVIDENDS SINCE SPIN-OFF* $3.52 $3.17 $2.82 $2.49 $2.16 $1.83 $1.50 $1.17 $0.84 $0.54 $0.27 Q2 2014 Q3 2014 Q4 2014 Q1 2015 Q2 2015 Q3 2015 Q4 2015 Q1 2016 Q2 2016 Q3 2016 Q4 2016 *As of December 25, 2016 DEAR FELLOW SHAREHOLDERS: New Media Investment Group Inc. (“New Media”, “we”, or the “Company”) continued to execute on its business plan in 2016. As a reminder, our strategy includes growing organic revenue and cash flow, driving inorganic growth through strategic and accretive acquisitions, and returning a substantial portion of cash to shareholders in the form of a dividend. Over the past three years since becoming a public company, we have consistently delivered on this strategy, and we have created a total return to shareholders of over 50% as of year-end 2016. Our Company remains the largest owner of daily newspapers in the United States with 125 daily newspapers, the majority of which have been published for more than 100 years. Our local media brands remain the cornerstones of their communities providing hyper-local news that our consumers and businesses cannot get anywhere else.
    [Show full text]
  • Attorney Admission Practices in the U.S. Federal Courts JOHN OKRAY
    40 • THE FEDERAL LAWYER • September 2016 Attorney Admission Practices in the U.S. Federal Courts JOHN OKRAY oes your state follow the common law rule against perpetuities, does it use the common law rule with the “wait-and-see” modification, has it adopted the Uniform Statutory Rule Against Perpetuities, or does it follow a different standard? Is the punishment for burglary in your state enhanced if the premises was inhabited or if the entry was Dat night? Even if you are a licensed attorney, there is a good chance you do not know these answers off the top of your head. The good news is that you are trained to conduct legal research and can find out relatively quickly. Nevertheless, some state bars and federal courts still require experienced attorneys to run the bar exam gauntlet multiple times to show they can grasp these concepts more than once. Various Courts, Various Requirements attorney is eligible for admission to the bar of a court of appeals While there has been a very slow but steady march toward if that attorney is of good moral and professional character and modernization of the legal profession, several pockets of outmod- is admitted to practice before the Supreme Court of the United ed and protectionist rules continue to plague the practice. This States, the highest court of a state, another United States court article focuses on attorney admission requirements for practicing of appeals, or a United States district court (including the district in the various federal courts, and specifically who are the leaders courts for Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Virgin and laggards in this area.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction
    INTRODUCTION Nationally, approximately 40% of new attorneys work at firms consisting of more than 50 lawyers. Therefore, a large percentage of practicing attorneys work for small firms (fewer than 50 attorneys). Small firms generally do not have formalized recruiting procedures or a set “hiring season” when they recruit summer law clerks, school-year law clerks, or entry-level attorneys. Instead, these firms hire on an as-needed basis, and they hire year round. To secure employment with a small firm, students and lawyers alike need to be proactive in getting their name and interests out in the community. Applicants should not only apply directly to these firms, but they should connect via law school, community, and bar association activities. In this directory, you will find state-by-state hyperlinks to regional directories, bar associations, newspapers, and job banks that can be used to jump-start a small firm search. ALABAMA State/Regional Bar Associations Alabama Bar Association: http://www.alabar.org Birmingham Bar Association: http://www.birminghambar.org Mobile Bar Association: http://www.mobilebar.org Specialty Bar Associations Alabama Defense Lawyers Association: http://www.adla.org Alabama Trial Lawyers Association: http://www.alabamajustice.org Major Newspapers Birmingham News: http://www.al.com/birmingham Mobile Register: http://www.al.com/mobile Legal & Non-Legal Resources & Publications State Lawyers.com: http://alabama.statelawyers.com EINNEWS: http://www.einnews.com/alabama Birmingham Business Journal: http://birmingham.bizjournals.com
    [Show full text]
  • Lawyer Wellness in Family Law
    Lawyer Wellness in Family Law PRESENTERS Judge Randall M. Blow No biographical information provided. Ameet I. Habib Ameet I. Habib joined Wolcott Rivers Gates in May 2013. Mr. Habib received his J. D. from Cleveland State University, Cleveland-Marshall College of Law and was admitted into practice in Virginia in 2007. He is a skilled litigator with more than six years of experience who concentrates his practice in the areas of divorce, custody, child support and visitation. Prior to joining our firm, Mr. Habib was a staff attorney with the Legal Aid Society of Virginia. As a staff attorney for Legal Aid, Mr. Habib successfully represented numerous clients in the General District, Juvenile and Domestic Relations and Circuit Courts in Norfolk, Virginia Beach, Chesapeake, Portsmouth, Hampton, York County and Accomack County. Mr. Habib also has experience in the United States Supreme Court as he was one of two legal externs selected to work in the Office of the Clerk of the United States Supreme Court. Justice William C. Mims Mims served as deputy legislative director to U.S. Senator Paul S. Trible Jr. from 1983 to 1985, and as chief of staff to Congressman Frank R. Wolf from 1985 to 1987. He practiced law in Leesburg, Virginia from 1987 to 2005. He was a distinguished adjunct professor of law, teaching Virginia Evidence, at George Mason University School of Law (now Antonin Scalia Law School) from 2002 to 2005. He briefly was a partner in the Hunton & Williams law firm in 2010, prior to joining the Supreme Court. Mims was elected to the Virginia House of Delegates in 1991 and the Senate of Virginia in 1998, serving a total of 14 years.
    [Show full text]
  • A Guide to Forward-Thinking Frugality for Small and Mid-Size Businesses
    A guide to forward-thinking frugality for small and mid-size businesses Fall 2017, Volume 2 in the BridgeTower Media series of guides for small and mid-sized businesses A supplement to: Arizona Capitol Times | Central Penn Business Journal | Charleston Regional Business Journal Columbia Regional Business Report | Daily Journal of Commerce | Finance & Commerce GSA Business Report | Idaho Business Review | Lehigh Valley Business | Long Island Business News Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly | Michigan Lawyers Weekly | Minnesota Lawyer | Missouri Lawyers Weekly NJBIZ | New Orleans CityBusiness | North Carolina Lawyers Weekly | Rhode Island Lawyers Weekly Rochester Business Journal | South Carolina Lawyers Weekly | e Daily Record | e Daily Reporter e Journal Record | e Mecklenburg Times | Virginia Lawyers Weekly | Wisconsin Law Journal NATIONAL FOCUS SECTIONS UPCOMING Throughout 2017 BridgeTower Media editors will take a NATIONAL close look at how market dynamics, legislation, competitive trends & new technologies in these sectors affect the RELEASES business & practices for its more than 300,000 business, IN 2017 legal & construction readers across the U.S. BridgeTower’s 27 print & digital publications cover legal, financial, real estate & government news in Employment more than 20 different markets. Our portfolio includes September 18 Our subscribers are affluent, influential publications well-educated decision makers. such as The Daily Record, Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, Virginia Lawyers Health Care BridgeTower Media properties Weekly, New Orleans October 23 around the country provide CityBusiness & NJBIZ. a dedicated readership with unprecedented penetration into key national markets: Cybersecurity √ Over 80,000 print subscribers November 20 √ 300,000 readers √ Over 3,000,000 monthly page views Wealth √ Over 800,000 monthly unique website visitors Management √ Newsletter distribution to 150,000 December 11 Participation opportunities include print & digital advertising, native content & SMB Best webinar sponsorships.
    [Show full text]
  • RECOGNIZED RECIPROCAL JURISDICTIONS the Following Jurisdictions Have Been Reviewed by the Arkansas State Board of Law Examiners
    RECOGNIZED RECIPROCAL JURISDICTIONS The following jurisdictions have been reviewed by the Arkansas State Board of Law Examiners and have been determined to be “reciprocal” under the provisions of the Arkansas admission on motion rule. Alaska Nebraska Colorado New Hampshire District of Columbia New York Georgia North Carolina Idaho Ohio Illinois Oklahoma Iowa Pennsylvania Kansas Tennessee Kentucky Texas Massachusetts Utah Minnesota Washington Mississippi Wisconsin Missouri JURISDICTIONS DETERMINED TO NOT BE RECIPROCAL The following jurisdictions have been reviewed by the Arkansas State Board of Law Examiners. It has been determined their admission on motion provisions are sufficiently dissimilar from the Arkansas admission on motion rule to decline recognition of them as “reciprocal” jurisdictions. Alabama New Mexico Arizona Oregon Indiana Rhode Island Michigan Virginia West Virginia JURISDICTIONS FOR WHICH RECIPROCAL STATUS HAS NOT BEEN DETERMINED Connecticut South Dakota Maine Vermont New Jersey Wyoming North Dakota JURISDICTIONS WHICH DO NOT ALLOW ADMISSION ON MOTION According to the most recent volume of the Comprehensive Guide to Bar Admission Requirements, a publication of the National Conference of Bar Examiners, the following jurisdictions do not allow admission on motion. Section 1.(d) of the Arkansas Admission on Motion rule requires that the state in which the applicant attorney has or had his or her “principal place of business for the practice of law for the two year period immediately preceding application under this rule, would allow attorneys from this State a similar accommodation”. Hence, if your “principal place of business” is in one of the jurisdictions mentioned below, you will not be allowed admission on motion in this jurisdiction.
    [Show full text]
  • 2021 It's All a Game: Top Trial Lawyers Tackle Evidence
    2021 It’s All A Game: Top Trial Lawyers Tackle Evidence 21-04 Friday, February 19, 2021 presented by The South Carolina Bar Continuing Legal Education Division http://www.scbar.org/CLE SC Supreme Court Commission on CLE Course No. 213780ADO This program qualifies for 6.0 MCLE credit hours, including up to 1.0 LEPR credit hour. SC Supreme Commission on CLE Course #: 213780ADO 8:50 a.m. Welcome and Opening Remarks The Honorable John Cannon Few, Justice, Supreme Court of South Carolina 9:00 a.m. The Sound of Silence: The Fifth Amendment and the Right to Remain Silent Original Presentation ~ 2020 Andrew B. Moorman Sr., Moorman Law Firm 10:00 a.m. You Can't Handle the Truth!!!: Effective ways for dealing with difficult, hostile or adverse witnesses Breon C.M. Walker, The Stanley Law Group, P.A. He's Quite a Character, Have You Heard What He's Done?: The use of character in criminal trials, how a prosecutor plans to use it in her case in chief, and what (if anything) you can do about it! Meghan L. Walker, Executive Director, South Carolina State Ethics Commission Original Presentations ~ 2014 11:00 a.m. Break 11:15 a.m. Forensic Interviews and Child Hearsay Statutes: What's Fair, What's Foul, and Are More Problems Yet to Come? Original Presentation ~ 2015 The Honorable Blake A. Hewitt, South Carolina Court of Appeals 12:15 p.m. Lunch Break 1:30 p.m. Managing the Changing Scope of Relevance in a Trial: Innovative Challenges to Traditional Concept of Admissibility? Original Presentation ~ 2008 The Honorable A.
    [Show full text]
  • US Guide to Bar Admission Requirements, 2016
    Comprehensive Guide to Bar Admission Requirements 2016 NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF BAR EXAMINERS AND AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION SECTION OF LEGAL EDUCATION AND ADMISSIONS TO THE BAR National Conference of Bar Examiners Comprehensive Guide to Bar Admission Requirements 2016 NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF BAR EXAMINERS AND AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION SECTION OF LEGAL EDUCATION AND ADMISSIONS TO THE BAR National Conference of Bar Examiners EDITORS ERICA MOESER CLAIRE J. GUBACK This publication represents the joint work product of the National Conference of Bar Examiners and the ABA Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar. The views expressed herein have not been approved by the House of Delegates or the Board of Governors of the American Bar Association, nor has such approval been sought. Accordingly, these materials should not be construed as representing the policy of the American Bar Association. National Conference of Bar Examiners 302 South Bedford Street, Madison, WI 53703-3622 608-280-8550 • TDD 608-661-1275 • Fax 608-280-8552 www.ncbex.org Chair: Hon. Thomas J. Bice, Fort Dodge, IA President: Erica Moeser, Madison, WI Immediate Past Chair: Bryan R. Williams, New York, NY Chair-Elect: Robert A. Chong, Honolulu, HI Secretary: Hon. Rebecca White Berch, Phoenix, AZ Board of Trustees: Hulett H. Askew, Atlanta, GA Patrick R. Dixon, Newport Beach, CA Michele A. Gavagni, Tallahassee, FL Gordon J. MacDonald, Manchester, NH Hon. Cynthia L. Martin, Kansas City, MO Suzanne K. Richards, Columbus, OH Hon. Phyllis D. Thompson, Washington, DC Timothy Y. Wong, St. Paul, MN ABA House of Delegates Representative: Hulett H. Askew, Atlanta, GA American Bar Association Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar 321 North Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60654-7598 312-988-6738 • Fax 312-988-5681 www.americanbar.org/legaled Chair: Hon.
    [Show full text]
  • Media Ownership and News Coverage of International Conflict
    Media Ownership and News Coverage of International Conflict Matthew Baum Yuri Zhukov Harvard Kennedy School University of Michigan matthew [email protected] [email protected] How do differences in ownership of media enterprises shape news coverage of international conflict? We examine this relationship using a new dataset of 591,532 articles on US-led multinational military opera- tions in Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan and Kosovo, published by 2,505 newspapers in 116 countries. We find that ownership chains exert a homogenizing effect on the content of newspapers’ coverage of foreign pol- icy, resulting in coverage across co-owned papers that is more similar in scope (what they cover), focus (how much “hard” relative to “soft” news they offer), and diversity (the breadth of topics they include in their coverage of a given issue) relative to coverage across papers that are not co-owned. However, we also find that competitive market pressures can mitigate these homogenizing effects, and incentivize co-owned outlets to differentiate their coverage. Restrictions on press freedom have the opposite impact, increasing the similarity of coverage within ownership chains. February 27, 2018 What determines the information the press reports about war? This question has long concerned polit- ical communication scholars (Hallin 1989, Entman 2004). Yet it is equally important to our understanding of international conflict. Prevailing international relations theories that take domestic politics into account (e.g., Fearon 1994, 1995, Lake and Rothschild 1996, Schultz 2001) rest on the proposition that the efficient flow of information – between political leaders and their domestic audiences, as well as between states involved in disputes – can mitigate the prevalence of war, either by raising the expected domestic political costs of war or by reducing the likelihood of information failure.1 Yet models of domestic politics have long challenged the possibility of a perfectly informed world (Downs 1957: 213).
    [Show full text]
  • 38-2-205-Deblasis-Pdfa.Pdf (792.0Kb)
    Another Tile in the “Jurisdictional Mosaic” 1 of Lawyer Regulation: Modifying Admission by Motion Rules to Meet the Needs of the 21st Century Lawyer ABIGAIL L. DEBLASIS2 Can practicing law on a less than "full-time" basis hinder a lawyer's future mobility? The answer depends on which jurisdiction you ask. A parent who is considering a reduced hours schedule for family reasons or a recent grad- uate whose only option is part-time work should know that these choices may impact future mobility. This Article provides an in-depth exploration of the current admission by motion rules, which are the rules that allow a lawyer who is already licensed and practicing in one jurisdiction to be admitted in another jurisdiction with- out having to take that jurisdiction's bar exam. These rules are of great ne- cessity in the modern world given the need for mobility. The rules require that an applicant have been practicing law for some stated period of time in the original jurisdiction, assuming that these years in practice will ensure the applicant has minimum competence to practice in the same way that pass- ing a bar exam ensures minimum competence. For example, a rule may re- quire that the applicant have been actively engaging in the practice of law for five of the seven years immediately preceding her application for admis- sion by motion. A troubling aspect of some jurisdictions' rules is the require- ment of "full-time" prior practice. The Article started out with a concern that lawyers, especially female law- yers, who work less than full-time for family or other reasons were signifi- cantly disadvantaged by the requirement of "full-time" prior practice.
    [Show full text]